V6 still not supported

Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Sun Mar 20 09:09:33 UTC 2022

Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via NANOG wrote:

>> I really don't see why people think it's so different that v4. To
>> me back then it mostly seemed like v4 with bigger address.
> Then I suppose, like me, you were in favor of the TUBA proposal?  :)

TUBA is TCP/UDP over CLNP (ConnectionLess Network Protocol) designed
by so infamous OSI, which is why it was denied by IETF through
democratic process even though IAB tried to deploy it.

However, as William Allen Simpson wrote:

> Then, the powers that be declared that IPv6 should have 128-bit
> addresses, and a host of committees were setup with competing CLNP
> (TUBA) co-chairs. They incorporated many ideas of CLNP and XNS that
> were thought (by many of us) to be worthless, useless, and harmful.
> Committee-itis at its worst.

IAB hideously striked back to make IPv6 something a lot worse than

So, it is rather not the second but the zero-th system syndrome.

						Masataka Ohta

More information about the NANOG mailing list